****Michigan Game Thread****

Enhance said:
Obviously money and winning are the right combo. I never suggested otherwise.

But, it's faulty logic to associate a lack of talent or bad recruiting decisions as an indictment against Nebraska's NIL potential, particularly in the first year of a head coach with a pretty rough inherited roster and no "Deion Sanders" brand behind his name. There's no way to prove Nebraska's talent challenges right now under Rhule as being the fault or even loosely associated with a lack of NIL potential. Let's revisit the conversation in a couple of seasons before making that claim.
Click to expand...
I just keep hearing that we have this tremendous money pool for getting players on campus, but yet I have not seen this working for us.  We bring in players like Casey Thompson, Mathis, Simms, and Palmer (Mickey brought him).  Were not gettting difference makers so to speak. I think we could or should have a huge advantage with the 1890 funds, but just haven't seen the benefits from it yet.  Do I hope we do start seeing those players come to campus?  Yes.  Until we stand behind a coaching staff and give them time to build something, I am afraid the money won't matter.  We have to commit to a staff and give it 4,5, or 6 years to see it thru. 

 
Nebhawk said:
I just keep hearing that we have this tremendous money pool for getting players on campus, but yet I have not seen this working for us.  We bring in players like Casey Thompson, Mathis, Simms, and Palmer (Mickey brought him).  Were not getting difference makers so to speak. I think we could or should have a huge advantage with the 1890 funds, but just haven't seen the benefits from it yet.  Do I hope we do start seeing those players come to campus?  Yes.  Until we stand behind a coaching staff and give them time to build something, I am afraid the money won't matter.  We have to commit to a staff and give it 4,5, or 6 years to see it thru. 
Click to expand...
To the bolded, I would caution against this line of thinking. Nebraska spending money to bring in good players doesn't necessarily mean those players will turn out to be difference makers. Or, put differently - players failing to meet expectations isn't necessarily a direct indictment against the actual money being spent to acquire them. Unless we're aware of the actual dollars being spent and the efforts made to get said players, it's kind of hard to judge.

I agree that time is really the only objective way of judging what this staff can/can't do. Further, money is only a part of the equation. Nebraska needs to start winning with what it has in order to entice interest. They have absolutely recruited at a high enough level to at least be bowl eligible in recent years. The fact they haven't been is more of an indictment against coaching and development IMO.

 
Mavric said:
The QB who doesn't give it to me four times per game.

And there really isn't anything that Sims has shown to do better than HH.  Running or throwing.

I get it.  You're going to go out of your way not to give HH any credit for anything and ignore all the bad stuff that Sims does. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
If HH is truly the best QB in the program, I must ask why it took an injury to Sims before he saw the field at QB? Clearly, the coaches did not believe that HH was the best option for us the first two games of the year. He did succeed in the first two games after he got the starting job which is commendable. However, he continues to struggle with consistency in hitting open windows to the receivers. Additionally, his limited mobility in the pocket is concerning with an offensive line that struggles to sustain protection. 

As for Sims, I simply believe he gives us the best chance to win the games ahead despite the turnovers. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wistrom Disciple said:
If HH is truly the best QB in the program, I must ask why it took an injury to Sims before he saw the field at QB? Clearly, the coaches did not believe that HH was the best option for us the first two games of the year. He did succeed in the first two games after he got the starting job which is commendable. However, he continues to struggle with consistency in hitting open windows to the receivers. Additionally, his limited mobility in the pocket is concerning with an offensive line that struggles to sustain protection. 

As for Sims, I simply believe he gives us the best chance to win the games ahead despite the turnovers. 
Click to expand...
There is a difference in how players perform in practice and how they perform in games. For whatever reason, Sims can’t take what he does in practice into the games.

I am not high on either player, but if the offense is going to be so limited no matter who the QB is, I would rather go with the guy who doesn’t turn the ball over to the other team. At this point, it’s Haarberg. But, IMO, that’s a fluid situation depending on health and game by game performance. 

 
Wistrom Disciple said:
If HH is truly the best QB in the program, I must ask why it took an injury to Sims before he saw the field at QB? Clearly, the coaches did not believe that HH was the best option for us the first two games of the year. He did succeed in the first two games after he got the starting job which is commendable. However, he continues to struggle with consistency in hitting open windows to the receivers. Additionally, his limited mobility in the pocket is concerning with an offensive line that struggles to sustain protection. 

As for Sims, I simply believe he gives us the best chance to win the games ahead despite the turnovers. 
Click to expand...
Why would you believe this, it could be argued that he attributed to the first two loses by turnovers alone.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
There is a difference in how players perform in practice and how they perform in games. For whatever reason, Sims can’t take what he does in practice into the games.

I am not high on either player, but if the offense is going to be so limited no matter who the QB is, I would rather go with the guy who doesn’t turn the ball over to the other team. At this point, it’s Haarberg. But, IMO, that’s a fluid situation depending on health and game by game performance. 
Click to expand...
I understand the fear of turning the ball over again and again. Jeff's fumbling at Colorado was clearly a problem and his decision-making at Minnesota was frustrating. Haarberg's ability to make what should be easy plays difficult is also frustrating and he's lucked out that opposing defenders haven't capitalized on his miscues very often. I figure it is a matter of time before some of those errant passes get picked. 

Stone Cold said:
Why would you believe this, it could be argued that he attributed to the first two loses by turnovers alone.
Click to expand...
I believe that Sims has a better ability to 'create' positive yards from dead end plays than Haarberg does at this point. 

 
Wistrom Disciple said:
I understand the fear of turning the ball over again and again. Jeff's fumbling at Colorado was clearly a problem and his decision-making at Minnesota was frustrating. Haarberg's ability to make what should be easy plays difficult is also frustrating and he's lucked out that opposing defenders haven't capitalized on his miscues very often. I figure it is a matter of time before some of those errant passes get picked. 
Click to expand...
You want to make a decision on hypotheticals. I would prefer when coaches make decisions based on facts. Again, I’m not saying I like either one at QB, but I have embraced the fact that Nebraska is going to need to win very ugly this year. In my opinion, that means whoever isn’t turning the ball over which costs the offense scoring chances, and gives the opponent short fields. Yes, Haarberg had a bad turnover against Michigan today, but that opponent is completely different than any opponent NU has seen all season.  In the first 2 games, I defended Sims due to the lack of talent around him, but he still had 7 turnovers which were really on him, and not turnovers forced by the defense.  If I am going to try to win games by limiting teams to points, I have a hard time trusting a QB who is prone to turnovers and who isn’t healthy right now. This could all change if Haarberg starts against Illinois and stinks up the joint. But, I don’t think Sims is anywhere near healthy enough to be an option at QB right now. 

 
ColoradoHusk said:
You want to make a decision on hypotheticals. I would prefer when coaches make decisions based on facts. Again, I’m not saying I like either one at QB, but I have embraced the fact that Nebraska is going to need to win very ugly this year. In my opinion, that means whoever isn’t turning the ball over which costs the offense scoring chances, and gives the opponent short fields. Yes, Haarberg had a bad turnover against Michigan today, but that opponent is completely different than any opponent NU has seen all season.  In the first 2 games, I defended Sims due to the lack of talent around him, but he still had 7 turnovers which were really on him, and not turnovers forced by the defense.  If I am going to try to win games by limiting teams to points, I have a hard time trusting a QB who is prone to turnovers and who isn’t healthy right now. This could all change if Haarberg starts against Illinois and stinks up the joint. But, I don’t think Sims is anywhere near healthy enough to be an option at QB right now. 
Click to expand...
I think I get it, you prefer a game manager QB? Doesn't turn the ball over very much, but also doesn't make too many spectacular plays. Seemed to work for Iowa the past couple of years with Spencer Patras. We don't yet have the elite special teams play that they enjoy or a defense with a first or second rounder at multiple levels, but maybe a that type of QB wins us 3-4 games the rest of the way? 

If Sims is indeed as hurt as you're suggesting, I fully agree that HH is the guy we need to go with. If they're both healthy and good to go though, my personal preference is to go with Sims. I get that his performances in the first two games do not justify that opinion and that HH lost his first Power Five game against the #2 team in the country. I simply believe Sims presents a greater chance for us to win most games so long as he limits the turnovers. Then again, I choose to be overly optimistic in life so I can understand that others will disagree and that is alright. 

 
Mavric said:
Other than all the long TDs that he's run for?

Sorry.  I'll try not to let any facts get in the way of what you insist on believing.  
Click to expand...
I've acknowledged the long runs, they were impressive. If he continues to be the starter, I hope that he can replicate those more often the rest of the year. Short of that however, he will need to significantly improve his passing and/or ability to create plays outside the pocket when a play breaks down. 

 
Wistrom Disciple said:
I've acknowledged the long runs, they were impressive. If he continues to be the starter, I hope that he can replicate those more often the rest of the year. Short of that however, he will need to significantly improve his passing and/or ability to create plays outside the pocket when a play breaks down. 
Click to expand...
There isn't a better thrower on the roster. Right now, Haarberg is the better passer simply because he doesn't turn it over. 

There isn't much of a QB dilemma on the team. Haarberg is much better than Sims simply because he doesn't turn it over as often. The only QB dilemma is going to be when Sims plays later this year after Haarberg is injured, how effective will he be, and will he continue to turn it over. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top